closing the achievement gap for ells through · a blended learning and multiliteracy approach...
TRANSCRIPT
Closing the Achievement Gap for ELLs through
Technology & Proven Language Pedagogy
Aline Germain-Rutherford, Ph.D.
Dana Laursen, Ph.D.
“Educating speakers of other languages in English, and encouraging mastery of multiple languages, has long been important to America’s competitiveness — and will be increasingly vital in the years to come. We challenge our schools and communities to invest in our future leaders with biliteracy and multiliteracy skills.”
(Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, 2014).
In this webinar, we will discuss...
• Research findings related to different types of English Language Development programs
• Research-based pedagogical designs and instructional strategies for English Language Development classes
We will also…
• Illustrate these pedagogical designs and instructional strategies in a Blended Learning experimentation conducted in several New England school districts
• Discuss the findings of this research
Overview of Webinar
Today…
… there are an estimated 4.6 million English Language Learners (9% of public school student population)
… ELL is the fastest growing student population in the United States.
… the majority of ELLs, both in elementary and secondary schools,
are native-born U.S. citizens.
U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences
National Center for Education Statistics
ELL Student Population By State
The Achievement Gap for ELLs
2013 NAEP Math average scores – 4th Grade 2013 NAEP Reading average scores – 4th Grade
The Nation’s Report Card Results for 2013 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) Mathematics and Reading Assessments
Historically, the academic performance of ELLs has been lower than that of other subgroups, and the achievement gap has narrowed little over the years.
English Language Instruction Program Models
ESL Model
• Pull out
• Push in
• Self-contained ESL
Single Immersion Model
• Content-based English as a Second Language (CBESL)
• Sheltered English Immersion
Bilingual Model
• Transitional Bilingual Education
• One-way Bilingual Education
• Two-way Bilingual Education
“Both one-way and two-way bilingual programs lead to grade-level and above-grade-level achievement in second language, the only programs that fully close the gap.
(Collier & Thomas, 2004)
Higher rates and speed of exit do not imply success: long-term attendance in bilingual programs results in students’ outperforming monolinguals
(Ramirez 1998, Howard et al. 2003, Parish et al. 2006, Francis et al. 2006, Genesee et al. 2005).
“In every study conducted, we have consistently found that it takes six to eight years, for ELLs to reach grade level in L2, and only one-way and two-way enrichment dual
language programs have closed the gap in this length of time. No other program has closed more than half of the achievement gap in the long term.”
(Collier & Thomas. 2004)
“Conversational aspects of proficiency reached peer-appropriate levels usually within about two years of exposure to English but a period of 5-7 years was required, on average, for immigrant students to approach grade norms in academic aspects of
English (e.g. vocabulary knowledge).”
(Cummins, 2008)
Research Findings on Models Comparison
Contextualized
Learning
Complex Thinking
Language and Literacy Development
Observation and
Modeling
Instructional Conversation
Joint Productive
Activity
Student Directed Activity
Seven Standards for Effective Pedagogy
(CREDE)
A Research-based Instructional Design
District Local Theme
Chelsea, MA Chelsea Clock
Taunton, MA Silver
Hartford, CT Bicycles and Transportation
Lynn Shoe Industry
Localized curriculum
(Place-based pedagogy)
• Wetlands
• Extreme Weather
• Baseball
• Transportation
• Inventions
Piloting the Research-based Instructional Design (2013-2014)
An Interactive Immersion Program for Middle School English Language Learners.
Gateway Cities
Summer Programs
Interactive Project-based
Curriculum
Vocational Exploration
Professional Development
Community Engagement
Family Literacy
Summer 2013 – I district (26 students) Summer 2014 – 4 districts (300 students)
Indicators of Success
For all 2014 Gateways programs, students demonstrated growth in the average writing scale score and proficiency level.
All four districts showed an increase in the literacy composite scale score.
All districts met or surpassed a demonstrated satisfaction grade of 80% for parents, students and teachers.
All students indicated an increased interest in career choices, particularly science, math and engineering as a result of their
summer experience.
All students indicated that they felt better prepared for school following the summer program.
Adding to the Instructional Model:
A Blended Learning and Multiliteracy Approach
Contextualized
Learning
Complex Thinking
Language and Literacy Development
Observation and
Modeling
Instructional Conversation
Joint Productive
Activity
Student Directed Activity
BLENDED LEARNING &
MULTILITERACY APPROACH
A Flexible and Modular Program Structure
Theme 1
Theme 3
Theme 2
Theme 20
• Grades 4-5, Level 1 and 2: 80 learning modules and 20 project modules per level • Grades 6-8, Level 1, 2 and 3: 80 learning modules and 20 project modules per level • Learning modules are grouped by 4 in a theme and associated to a project module
PROJECT
MODULE 1
MODULE 2
MODULE 3
MODULE 4
PROJECT
MODULE 1
MODULE 2
MODULE 3
MODULE 4
PROJECT
MODULE 1
MODULE 2
MODULE 3
MODULE 4
PROJECT
MODULE 1
MODULE 2
MODULE 3
MODULE 4
20
Th
em
es
pe
r Le
vel
…
• Connects the curriculum and the learning activities to the students’ prior knowledge and experiences.
• A culturally inclusive curriculum that takes into consideration the sociocultural values and perspectives of the students and his/her community is conducive to improved learning outcomes.
1. Contextualized Learning
Contextualized Learning: Connecting to Students’ Lives
and Identities
Contextualized Learning: Connecting with Peers
• Cognitively challenging content from academic disciplines • Meaningful and authentic intellectual work • Scaffolded learning tasks and projects that require complex thinking • Reflection activities and thinking and learning strategies
2. Higher-Order Thinking
Higher-Order Thinking: Authentic Multimedia Content
• Amount and range of reading and writing
• Use of effective strategies for deep understanding of text
• Positive affect and identity investment in reading and writing
Higher-Order Thinking: Literacy Engagement
Drawing on both the 1998 NAEP data from the United States and the results of the PISA study of reading achievement among 15-year olds in international contexts, Guthrie (2004, p. 5) notes that students “…whose family background was characterized by low income and low education, but who were highly engaged readers, substantially outscored students who came from backgrounds with higher education and higher income, but who themselves were less engaged readers. Based on a massive sample, this finding suggests the stunning conclusion that engaged reading can overcome traditional barriers to reading achievement, including gender, parental education, and income.” (Cummins, 2011)
Literacy/Language Attainment
Literacy/Language Engagement
Scaffold Meaning
(input and output)
Connect to students’ lives Activate/Build
background knowledge
Affirm
Identity
Extend language
Higher-Order Thinking: Framing The Evidence (Cummins, 2011)
• Vocabulary building and the four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing • Metalinguistic awareness • Contextualized focus on form activities to identify patterns in oral and written structures, to
model one’s writing on relevant academic texts, and to write and present on specific academic topics
• Explicit attention to word formation and word origin
3. Academic English & Literacy Development
Academic English & Literacy Development Metalinguistic Awareness - Word Formation
Academic English & Literacy Development Metalinguistic Awareness - Word Map
• Observation and modeling as a scaffolding strategy, from imitation to creation of discourse in the end project
• Metacognitive modeling through reflective questions and self-assessment rubrics • Metacognitive modeling strategy helps students become self-aware, autonomous and
efficient learners
4. Observation & Modeling
Observation & Modeling: Text Structure
Observation & Modeling: Metacognitive Modeling
5. Instructional Conversation
• Dialogic dynamic: students are prompted with reflective questions as they read • Discussion Board and in-class interaction for project
Instructional Conversation: Discussion Board
6. Joint Productive Activity
• Project drives students’ learning through discovery, inquiry and collaborative creation, and involves authentic communicative language use in the process.
• Learning is facilitated by the collaboration and the interaction with peers and teacher.
7. Student-directed Activity
• Students choose and decide on their project’s topic and format of delivery. • Use of reflection activities and self- and peer-assessment rubrics.
Sites
• 8 Sites - 15 teachers
• 13 Sections utilizing 6-8
• 8 Sections utilizing 4-5
Students
• Approximately 250 students total participating in online modules
• Students participate in a “pull out” environment
• ELL teacher provides instruction during daily intervention class period
Support
• ELL Director
• 6 District Level Coaches
• 2 School based Coaches – One each at two different sites
Observations Student Surveys
Teacher and School-based Coach Focus
Groups
Administrator Focus Groups
Parent Focus Groups
Mixed Method Study by the Centre for Research & Reform in Education (JHU).
District Pilot in Hartford, Connecticut
develops English language proficiency in all language domains (listening, speaking, reading and writing)
enables students to connect and participate in regular content area classes
develops Common Core literacy skills and strategies (e.g., CCRA. R1: Cite textual evidence, make inference)
helps students develop confidence using English and participating in school experiences
The goal is to provide English Language Learners (ELLs) with
instructional support that:
Hartford Program Goals
School Year 2014-15 Pilot Implementation
Fall Semester 2014
• 8 Sites – grades 4-8)
• Overarching Theme I
Spring Semester Group 1
• Four Sites, grades 4-8
• Overarching Theme 2
Spring Semester Group 2
• Two Sites, grades 6-8
• Overarching Theme 3
Spring Semester, Group 3
• Two Sites, Grades 4-8
• Overarching Theme 4
Summer Program
• 6-8 Sites, Grades 4-8 and High School
• Overarching Theme 5 and Level II, Overarching Theme 1
Data Collection
Online Teacher Surveys
• Post theme instruction
Anecdotal Records
• Mid-year and year-end report based on observations and feedback from coaches, teachers and students
Las Links Benchmark Assessments
• 3 benchmarks
Fall – Winter - Spring
78%
41%
31%
73%
21% 17%
% Students with Increasing Scores
% Students Increasing at least 10 Points in Basic Level
% Students in Top Tier Basic (23-32) at 2nd Benchmark
Average Gain by Tiers
MIL Scores NON- MIL Scores
Overall SPED Average
Score Increase
7.6
Overall SPED Avg. Score
Increase w/o Decreasing
Scores
8.5
Special Education
LAS Links Benchmark Assessment
6.7
5.3
7.9
7.1
MIL Gains Non-MIL Gains
Average Gain - Fall 2014
Overall Average Increase
Overall Average Increase w/o Decreasing Scores
Teacher Comments H
ow
has
th
e p
ilot
imp
acte
d m
y te
ach
ing?
• ELLs love the program.
• ELLs love the projects.
• Students are developing new interests as a result of the Themes.
• Teachers have more awareness of students’ background knowledge as a result of Themes.
Ho
w h
as u
sin
g th
e p
ilot
imp
acte
d s
tud
en
t le
arn
ing?
• Improvement in academic vocabulary.
• Increased confidence level.
• Reading, writing, speaking, listening have improved.
• Students have developed new interests.
• Students are using technology to learn.
• Students have developed new pride in learning.
Ho
w h
as t
he
pilo
t ch
ange
d m
y p
ract
ice
? • Improvements in pacing, especially for new arrivals.
• Renewed desire to make more fun, interactive, learning activities.
• Better understanding of grouping.
• More collaboration with classroom teachers.
• Connections to more relevant contextualized information.
• Better understanding of blended learning.
Wh
at c
hal
len
ges
hav
e I
en
cou
nte
red
? • Students who are entering after program has begun.
• Students who have additional learning difficulties.
• Small classrooms.
• New arrivals who are at different language and academic levels.
• Groups that are not even.
• Some students have limited technological background.
• Tracking progress.
• Finding additional materials for further learning with Themes.
• Additional teacher resources for Themes.
Pilot Participant Perspective
The overall perspective from the District is positive.
Teachers have embraced teachable moments.
There are perceived changes in quality of instruction and richness of discussion.
Teacher’s are integrating new strategies.
Students get excited “out loud.”
Students connect with the content on a cultural level.
Parents and students appreciate sequencing and repetition.
Professional Development
“There must also be an explicit effort to make sure that general education teachers and other school professionals who teach ELLs are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge”
(NEA President Dennis Van Roekel, 2011).
Modular Approach
Webinars
Focused Sessions
Onsite Options
Train-the-Trainers Model
Initial Mandatory, In Process and Optional Professional Development Offerings
Community of Practice
Resource Center
Collegial Sharing
Curriculum Support and Best Practices
Glossaries
Theme Outlines
Blended Learning Strategies
PDF resources
Scope and Sequence and Target Learning Objectives
Optional Recorded Webinars for Just-in-Time Access
Alignments
